Friday, October 31, 2014

Subscribers to this website have now been sent directly
to their e-mail address,"Mid-Term Countdown #6"
which has been my ongoing commentary of the individual
U.S. house and senate, and gubernatorial competitive
races of 2014. (Only subscribers receive this. To subscribe
go to the "SUBSCRIBE" button on the left side of this page.)

Two general comments, however:

President Obama has the worst political tin ear I've seen at
that level of politics. (I realize he thinks he is bringing out
his political base.) But it is almost as if he's daring Americans
to turn against him.

Let us not forget that the energy of the potential wave has been
provided by the incompetence of Barack Obama and his
overreaching allies across the nation. The Republicans, if they
win, will now have to out forward new ideas. Otherwise,
their victory next Tuesday would be an empty one.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

A few days ago, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (a Democrat)
and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (a Republican) ordered
that air passengers originating in Ebola-stricken countries who
landed at New York and New Jersey airports would be subject to
quarantines of 21 days.

This was opposed by the Obama administration, and both
governors were subjected to severe criticism by the Old Media
which has consistently deferred to the president and his policies.

In fact, the action of Governors Cuomo and Christie was a
much-needed temporary response to the international health
threat which, if not contained, could become a worldwide
pandemic.

The first person quarantined was a nurse who had cared for
Ebola patients in West Africa, and had a temperature recorded
when she first landed in the U.S. She subsequently was
determined not to have the virus, and Governor Christie
released her. She is now in her home state of Maine.

The criticism of the two governors has been obviously
political. Governor Christie especially is a potential candidate
for president in 2016, and the liberal media has been for months
relentless in its efforts to discredit him.

A quarantine is an extreme measure that should only be used
when there is a clear and present danger. It is very inconvenient
for those quarantined. But it is only 21 days, and considering
its ravaging of West African nations, it seems a necessary
action at this time, especially for those who have had direct
contact with the disease. Voluntary or self-quarantines apparently
have not worked. Even medical personnel who should know
better have failed to observe the required protocols.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in contrast to his boss,
President Obama, supports the 21-day quarantine. U.S. Army
troops, including a general, who were sent to West Africa are
now in quarantine before returning to the U.S.

If these actions by the governors and the defense secretary seem
by some to be an over-reaction, they are at least on the side of
prudent caution.

The measures for quarantine can be adjusted so that persons such
as the nurse can be released. Governor Christie did this. Neither
he nor Governor Cuomo should be reproached for their serious
efforts to reassure the public and provide proper protection to the
general populace.

They, in fact, deserve public praise for taking charge at a time when
others were supposed to lead, and did not.

Monday, October 27, 2014

An unusual storm over the Atlantic has been forming now for weeks, and like its climate cousin the hurricane, it makes its way ashore on its own timetable. These great storms are always unpredictable, and sometimes they do not come to land, butspend themselves at sea. It is not a Pacific storm this time; thewest coast states of California, Oregon and Washington will not discern it, but folks who live there will likely be reading about it.

One of America’s greatest writers, Herman Melville, wrote manyepic novels about the sea and about its storms. But this storm is
not about sailors and ships at sea, and it does not appear on
conventional radar or sonar. Its isobars are unrecordable by weather forecasters On the American east coast, there are already signs of this storm, but no definite evidence that it will make landfall first at Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia or
Florida, if at all.

Unlike official storms, it does not yet have a name, but if it doescome ashore, it will surely have many names.

Friday, October 24, 2014

I am writing this BEFORE the votes are counted on election day; in fact, I am writing this several daysbeforehand. I am NOT predicting any of the outcomesdiscussed here; I am only suggesting what might happen
if the much-discussed political “wave” does occur (or
does not occur) on November 4.

I want to point out that political waves come in various
sizes. Furthermore, it is quite possible that there will be
no true wave this cycle, only a typical election in whichthe party holding the White House loses some seats inthe U.S. house and senate.

But let’s say, for argument’s sake, there IS a wave.

If there is a wave, its intensity and impact will depend onhow emotionally motivated significant numbers of voters,most of them independents or non-party-affiliated, are onelection day. This general group usually make up most of the so-called undecided voters, especially those who makeup their minds at the very end of the campaign, and thengo to the polls.

At this late date, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario inwhich “wave” voters would turn to Democratic candidates.If there is a wave in 2014, it will be most likely a conservativeand/or anti-Obama wave.

Currently, not taking into account a wave, there is a generalconsensus that Republicans will pick up 5-7 U.S. senateseats, 5-10 U.S. house seats, and that Democrats will gain a net of 3-4 governorships. That would be a decent night for theconservative party, but no wave. If the Democrats can holdGOP gains in the senate to five or less, it would actually be arelatively good night for the Democrats.

A true “wave,” in my opinion, would require many more undecided voters to vote Republican, and many Democrats to stay home. A true wave would produce a net gain of 8-10 Republican senators, 11-15 Republican house members, and close to a draw in net new governors. A “tsunami,” on the otherhand, would bring in 11-15 new GOP senators, 16-25 new GOP house members, and the surprise of some net gains in GOP governors.

The “tsunami” scenario in 2014 seems unlikely with abouttwo weeks to go, but a more modest “wave” does not. Considering the Democratic advantages of cash and theirget-out-the-effort, a more modest “traditional” mid-termelection with only some congressional gains for the GOP, andDemocrats picking a small number of governorships is alsoquite possible.

I want to repeat what I have said now for many months. Anykind of true wave, moderate or heavy, does not appear visibleuntil either just before election day, or when the vote is counted.Waves are almost always late-breaking. Not only that, wavescan peak too soon or, as in the 1968 presidential election, notreach their peak in time for the actual voting. (“President”
Hubert Humphrey could have lectured on that scenario!)

This discussion is obviously speculative. Even with only days togo before election day, the dimensions of the 2014 cycle areunclear. Waves are relatively rare electoral occurrences. Whenthey do happen, however, they often bring surprises and greatshock in their wake.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

In President Obama’s own and unambiguous words, he andhis administration are on the ballot on November 4. Democratic Party strategists shuddered when he said it,but this time there was “no walking the statement back,” as they say in DC lingo. Mr. Obama and his wife on the campaign trail have repeated it since again and again.

This is as it should be in the national mid-term of a president’s second term. It gives the American electoratean opportunity to pass a judgment on the accomplishments,or lack of them, and a final chance to either encourage moreof the same or to put a brake on policies and a direction they do not like.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

On November 5, 1918 American voters went to the polls for
the mid-term elections during President Woodrow Wilson’s
second term. Six days later, World War I would end. In that
month a worldwide pandemic of “Spanish” influenza was
raging.

In 1913, a constitutional amendment changed the election of
U.S. senators from election by state legislators to direct
election by all state voters. The first national direct election
of senators had occurred in 1914. The senate, because of its
constitutional powers of confirming presidential appointments
and its role in foreign policy was the key election that year. The
Democrats had 50 seats, the Republicans had 46. Control of
the senate was crucial to the direction of post-war foreign
policy, control of the U.S. supreme court, and the outcome of
the 1920 presidential election that would follow two years later.

When the votes were counted, the Republicans had picked up
a net of six seats, and had control of the senate 52-44. (There
were only forty-eight states in 1918, and thus only ninety-six
senators.)

A year later, President Wilson suffered a stroke in office, and
his wife became the de facto president. In 1920, Republicans
won the presidency, and held the White House for the next
twelve years. (Ironically, the defeated Democratic vice
presidential candidate in 1920, Franklin Roosevelt, would win
back the White House for the Democrats in 1932.)

The circumstances of 1918 are very different from those of 2014,
although there is the curious coincidence of an international
pandemic occurring during both years. For example, in 1918
the Democratic senators from the South were segregationists.
Most black voters voted for Republicans, as they had since the
Civil War. In 1918, women did not have the right to vote.
Democrats had blocked this for decades. Historically, the
Republicans were the champions of women's rights, and the
election of 1918 made possible the passing of a constitutional
amendment in 1920 giving U.S. women the right to vote.

What is similar, of course, is the vital question of who controls
the U.S. senate, and the implications for the next presidential
election.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

In a race-by-race analysis of the national mid-term electionssent to current subscribers to this website (directly to theire-mail addresses) earlier today, I suggested that the past week was generally good to the Republicans, but that a true picture of the final outcomes is not yet in sight.

No political party easily gives up the powers that they have,and the Democrats are particularly “ferocious” in this cycleto keep control of the U.S. senate, and to make gains in theirnumber of governors of the states.

I have been stressing, despite the voter momentum to the conservative party this cycle, that the liberal party has seriouscards to play, and that they are, and will continue, playingthem right up to election day. These include much more campaign funds, reliable constituencies, and a proven andeffective ability to get out their vote. Republicans this cyclehave outfunded the Democrats only in the gubernatorial races (thanks to having more incumbents and the efforts of Republican Governors Association chairman Chris Christie).

The structure of the congressional map, as well as the GOPtrend this year, ensures mostly good outcomes for the conservative party in U.S. house races, despite the Democrats’financial advantage in these races. The Democrats have nowpulled their ads in many of the races where they hoped to defeatincumbent Republicans, and reallocated those funds to savingvulnerable Democrats.

It is in the U.S. senate races where Republicans must most be wary, and not overconfident, with just under three weeks to go.The Democrats know where they still have opportunities, bothto save their own vulnerable incumbents and to possibly pick off an incumbent GOP senator or two. They have the money andthey have the technology to make a successful last stand.

As in some house races, Democrats have redirected their efforts.They appear to be conceding Colorado and Kentucky, but thereare several senate races where heavy advertising and aggressiveget-out-the-vote efforts might yet save the political day for them.

Just as, following the 2004 election when Republicans had the better ground game, the 2014 mid-term elections are a challengeto the opposition party to adapt to a new election landscapefeaturing early voting, looser voting rules, high-tech voter I.Dmethods, and new political media/communication venues.

Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic party
nomination in 2008 in part by embracing the then new electionlandscape, and he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012 in part becausethe Republicans had not learned the lessons of 2006, 2008 and2012.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

There are now less than four weeks to go until election day,
Nominees have been chosen. Initial TV and other media
ads have been run. Campaign strategies are being carried out.
TV debates between the candidates have begun. What remains
to be done?

A very great deal, and it can be summed up in one short phrase:“ground game.”

The ground game is the unglamorous and most labor intensive
side of a political campaign. It consists of the time-consuming
work of identifying a candidate’s most likely voters, keeping in
touch with them by phone, with mailings and the internet, and
then creating an effective organization that makes sure they
get to the polls on election day.

It is not a casual effort. It requires large numbers of
carefully trained and prepared volunteers or paid staff, and in
2014, it also requires up-to-date technology and techniques.

Since 2006, the national Democratic Party, and most of the
state Democratic Parties, have clearly had the better ground
game. I think the liberal party’s ground game made the
difference in the 2012 presidential election on behalf of their
ticket. Even though the Democrats don’t have a presidential
candidate running in 2014, and despite the fact that their own
presidential incumbent has become quite unpopular, they will
conduct a massive and effective ground game in most areas of
the country this year.

Although it is undeniably a cycle favoring Republicans, the
conservative party would make an enormous mistake if it does
not achieve a very serious catch-up in its ground game in the
closing days of the 2014 national mid-term elections. So far,
all polling shows a higher intensity for Republican voters this
year, and some Democrats are demoralized by the performance
of President Obama, but that does not mean that most Democrats,
effectively identified and prodded by their party’s ground game,
won’t go to the polls and vote for Democratic candidates.

A so-called political “wave” could help Republicans, especially
Republican U.S. senate challengers, this cycle, but if there is not
a truly effective GOP ground game in the competitive senate,
house and gubernatorial races, the Republican Party, its
candidates, and its aspirations will fall short on election day.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

The recent turnabout in Kansas does not fully qualify as a
last-minute surprise, the kind of which almost always appear on
a national mid-term elections night. The collapse of the GOP in
that state is real enough, but it occurred enough in advance of
the actual election for the Republican incumbent to make a
serious effort to recover.

The real surprises percolate either on election night itself when
the results are being tabulated, or at most, a few days before in
the final polling when little or nothing can be done to affect the
outcome.

Somewhere in the list of “Safe” Democrats and/or “Safe”
Republicans is a candidate or two who is not so safe at all. Why
the dynamics of these campaigns are so sudden and late is
often unclear, but invariably they occur. And they can occur in
either party. The Kansas example demonstrates this. It is
shaping up to be a GOP year in the midwest, if not most of the
country, and Kansas is usually as red as red can be, but both
the conservative governor and the conservative U.S. senator are
in trouble.

Early possibilities for a last-minute surprise include U.S. senate
races in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Minnesota, and South
Dakota. The four former are “safe” Democratic seats, the latter
race is considered now “safe” Republican. But a “wave” could
defeat the Democrats, and a third party candidate could upset the
Republican. In fact, there are several third party candidates this
year who could alter the final results. Most of these races are now
considered likely Republican, but Democrats could pull out
surprise victories because some Republican voters might be
moved to vote for independent or libertarian third party candidates.

I have been covering national mid-term and presidential election
cycles for a very long time, and I cannot remember even one of
those many election years when there was not at least one or two
true surprises on election day.

I think this is one of the most wonderful and reassuring aspects
of U.S. representative democracy. As much as my fellow pundits,
myself included, labor to analyze and prognosticate the behavior
of the American voter, it is the single voter, counted in an
aggregate, who has the last, and often surprising, word.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Subscribers to The Prairie Editor website were just sent Mid-Term Countdown #2 directly to their e-mail addresses. This detailed race-by-race Countdown will be updated at least once a week from now until the election. These analyses will also be sent to current (paid-up) subscribers only.

Special election night coverage, includingresults and analysis will also be available for"subscribers only" all evening of November 4. Any reader who wishes to subscribe should scroll down on this page on the right side tothe "SUBSCRIBE" button, and click on it.The annual fee is $45.00, and it can be paid'there with a credit card.

Search This Blog

About Barry Casselman

BARRY CASSELMAN is an author, journalist and lecturer who has reported and analyzed American presidential and national politics since 1972.

He founded, edited and published his first newspaper when he was 29. He has been a contributor to many national publications, including The Weekly Standard, realclearpolitics.com, Politico, Roll Call, Washington Examiner, The American Interest, Utne Reader, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, American Experiment Quarterly, Washington Times, The Rothenberg Political Report, Business Today, Election Politics, Business Ethics Magazine, San Francisco Examiner, Washington Insider, and American Commonwealth.

His regular op ed columns and other commentary in print, and on the internet, are distributed through the Preludium News Service. His blog ‘The Prairie Editor” has an international readership and appears on his website at www.barrycasselman.com .

He was a political analyst for WCCO-AM (CBS) for several years, for KSJN-AM (Public Radio International), and for KUOM-AM (National Public Radio). He has also broadcast on RAE in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and beginning in 2000, he produced and broadcast for Voice of America. In 2006, he presented news commentary on LBC, the independent 24-hour news radio network in London, England. He also provided election night analysis in 2006 for Minnesota Public Radio. In 2008, he returned to WCCO-AM for periodic national election commentary. Beginning in 2011, he began weekly commentary on the 2012 presidential campaign on a national radio podcast program originating in Dallas, TX.

Casselman was the original host of “Talk To Your City” on the Minneapolis Television Network, and was a frequent political commentator for KTCA-TV (PBS). In 1992 and 1994, he presented election night analysis for the Conus coast-to-coast All News Channel. In 1996, he provided live coverage from the presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire for All News Channel nationwide. He has also appeared on C-SPAN. In 2008, he was interviewed by ABC-TV Evening News with Charles Gibson.

He has covered national presidential primaries, caucuses and straw polls since 1976, and attended Democratic and Republican national conventions since 1988. He has traveled throughout the United States to report on significant political events, including the national congressional debate in Williamsburg in 1996, the presidential debates, national conventions and events of the Democratic Leadership Council, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, United We Stand America, Reform Party, National Governors Association, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Christian Coalition, CPAC, Green Party and the Independence Party.

In 2012, he was invited to be a civilian participant in the 58th annual seminar on national security at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Also in 2012, he was a speaker at the Jefferson Educational Society's Global Summit IV. At that event, he received the Thomas Hagen "Dignitas" Award for lifetime achievement.

From 1990-2011, he was the executive director of the non-profit International Conference Foundation, and hosted more than 500 world leaders, foreign journalists and other international visitors. At the non-partisan Foundation, he also organized four national symposia: the first on low-income housing with then-HUD Secretary Jack Kemp; the second, a highly-acclaimed conference on “Locating the New Political Center in America” with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and leading spokespersons of the Clinton administration as well as newly-emerged independent groups; the third, a symposium on public communications with then-Governor Tom Ridge, former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, Tony Blankley and other national figures; and in 2003, a symposium on homeland security with Secretary Ridge and leading local and national experts. During this time, he also organized numerous smaller conferences, tours and events for the U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Department of State for its International Visitor Program and its Foreign Press Center programs. In 2008, he organized a special program for international media and visitors attending the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The Foundation also sponsored programs presenting domestic and international authors and their books.

In 2007, Mr. Casselman helped create and plan the nationally-broadcast and podcast dialogue between former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at the Cooper Union in New York City, and he continued to work on related debate and public policy discussion projects in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Mr. Casselman has been a lecturer on public policy at Princeton University’s annual international business conferences in New York, and its regional conferences in Chicago since 2005; He also has been a guest lecturer at George Washington University, Carleton College, The Chautauqua (NY) Institution, Gannon University, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Santa Barbara City College, University of St. Thomas, Metropolitan State University, Augsburg College, University of Minnesota, Jefferson Educational Society, and on the international voyages of the Queen Elizabeth 2, Sagafjord, Vistafjord and Royal Viking Sun. He has made presentations on journalism and the arts at Carleton College, University of Minnesota, College of St. Catherine, Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Walker Art Center, Metropolitan State University, Mercyhurst College and the Brazilian Writers Union in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

His non-fiction book North Star Rising was published in 2007 by Pogo Press, an imprint of Finney Company. In 2008, Pogo Press published Minnesota Souvenir, Casselman’s history and visitor guide for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul. He was editor and co-author of the book Taking Turns: Political Stalemate or a New Direction in the Race for 2012, a preview of that year's national election.

He has been cited in Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics and in William Safire’s Political Dictionary. Casselman has invented a number of political words and phrases which are now in frequent usage, and listed in various online dictionaries.

He is also a widely-published American poet, short story writer and playwright whose work has been translated and published in Europe, South America and Asia. He is the author of four published books of literary prose and poetry. His work has been frequently anthologized. Two of his plays, in collaboration with composer Randall Davidson, have been performed by the Actors Theater of St. Paul, Minnesota Orchestra, St. Donat’s Ensemble of Wales, and by independent productions at the Union Depot in St. Paul and the Foss Theater at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. He has provided original texts for two award-winning experimental films, as well as texts for other independent short films and videos.

Barry Casselman was born in Erie, Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. with major honors from the University of Pennsylvania and his M.F.A. at the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. He has also studied in Paris, and attended the University of Madrid. He now lives in Minneapolis.